Search

The two great modern naturalists, Linnaeus and Darwin, expressed their intuition about how best to visualize patterns of affinities, that is, morphological similarities and divergences between taxa. Linnaeus suggested that "all plants show affinities on all sides, like a territory on a geographical map," while Darwin thought that it was virtually impossible to understand the affinities between living and extinct species without a genealogical tree. Genealogical trees follow the diachronic, evolving logic of a timeline, whereas maps depict a synchronous pattern of extant taxa. Although the two seem unrelated, various naturalists made attempts to combine them. Surprisingly, these resulted in three-dimensional images that, in order to be observed, had to be projected on paper. The naturalists Max Fürbringer and Richard Bowdler Sharpe were aware of this fact, but even Darwin himself twice combined the basic intuitions underlying the two modes of representation to produce three-dimensional images. This article is a brief history of the efforts to merge genealogical trees and map-like cross sections of affinities into one three-dimensional image. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the space of four years, from 1826 to 1829, the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal published three anonymous articles seemingly advocating doctrines inspired by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Decades of scholarship have initially attributed the most outspoken of the three articles, the 1826 "Observations on the Nature and Importance of Geology," to Robert Grant, and subsequently to Robert Jameson, thanks to a critical reassessment by James Secord (1991). More recently, scholars have also ascribed to Jameson an article published in 1829, "Of the Continuity of the Animal Kingdom by Means of Generation from the First Ages of the World to the Present Times." A third short contribution, the 1827 "Of the Changes which Life has Experienced on the Globe" has been credited to the Franco-German Ami Boué. Research undertaken over several years has led to the identification of the three authors hiding behind the veil of anonymity. They were not the ones scholars have agreed upon, nor were they really "Lamarckians." The discussion of the ways in which the three texts reached Edinburgh broadens our understanding of the daily working practices of contemporary periodicals and of the networks of circulation of texts at the Continental level. Finally, when considered within their proper conceptual and social context, the three articles throw light on the many ways in which, during the 1820s, European amateurs, naturalists, and journalists debated the succession of life forms throughout the history of the Earth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alfred Russell Wallace's The Malay Archipelago, published in 1869, is a classic text in natural history and the theory of evolution. Amidst heroic hunting narratives and picturesque descriptions of local fauna and flora, stands out a curious episode in which Wallace describes adopting a baby orangutan, whose mother he had killed. Wallace, a British naturalist and collector, cultivated an affectionate relationship with the orphaned orangutan, often referring to her as his "baby." This paper examines how the orangutan was transformed from being a moving target for museum display, to a beloved companion but also a scientific specimen. In this process, Wallace redesigned his colonial bungalow to a space that combined domestic settings with engineered nature-like environments, a familiar construction in later primate research. I use Wallace's adoption episode to discuss how affect and care were interwoven into the exploitative relations of British naturalists and physiologists and the animals they studied. The account of Wallace's idiosyncratic relationship with the orangutan is augmented with additional documentation of the close relationships of scientists with research animals, staged as familial kinship. The emergence of the "laboratory pet" demonstrates how the production of knowledge, the sharing of households, and human-animal emotional ties were interwoven in early biomedical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the years of the post-Darwinian debate, many American naturalists invoked the name of Lamarck to signal their belief in a purposive and anti-Darwinian view of evolution. Yet Weismann's theory of germ-plasm continuity undermined the shared tenet of the neo-Lamarckian theories as well as the idea of the interchangeability between biological and social heredity. Edward Drinker Cope, the leader of the so-called "American School," defended his neo-Lamarckian philosophy against every attempt to redefine the relationship between behavior, development, and heredity beyond the epigenetic model of inheritance. This paper explores Cope's late-career defense of neo-Lamarckism. Particular attention is dedicated to the debate he had with James Mark Baldwin before the publication of Baldwin's own "A New Factor in Evolution" (1896d). I argue that Cope's criticism was partly due to the fact that Baldwin's theory of social heredity threatened Cope's biologistic stance, as well as his attempt to preserve design in nature. This theoretical attitude had a remarkable impact on Baldwin's arguments for the theory of organic selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sixteenth century could be understand as a period of renaissance of interest in nature and as a period of development of natural history as a discipline. The spreading of the printing press was connected to the preparation of new editions of Classical texts and to the act of correcting and commenting on these texts. This forced scholars to confront texts with living nature and to subject it to more careful investigation. The discovery of America uncovered new horizons and brought new natural products, which were exotic and unknown to Classical tradition. The aim of this study is to compare strategies and categories, which were used in describing plants of the Old and the New World. Attention will be paid to the first reactions to the new flora, to the methods of naming and describing plants, to the ways of gaining knowledge about plants from local sources or by means of one's own observation. The confrontation with novelty puts naturalists in the Old World and in the New World in a similar situation. It reveals the limits of traditional knowledge based on Classical authorities. A closer investigation, however, brings to light not only the sometimes unexpected similarities, but also the differences which were due to the radical otherness of American plants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hewett Cottrell Watson and Edward Forbes were two naturalists of the Victorian age. They were protagonists on a dispute that generated comment and serves as an illuminating case study of misunderstanding in priority issues. Watson accused Forbes of having plagiarized his original classification of the British plants into groups on the basis of their geographical distribution. This controversy originated mostly from a so-far-ignored basic difference in Watson's and Forbes' ideas about biogeographical regionalization. Watson's classification of the British flora into groups of species with similar distribution was probably the first application of the concept of 'regional chorotype.' By contrast, the biogeographical classification of the British flora proposed by Forbes belongs to the concept of 'element,' because it was based on assumed species history (i.e. colonization routes). The two approaches may produce similar outcomes, but remain conceptually different. Although personal reasons may have contributed to exacerbate the Watson-Forbes controversy, failure in recognizing this distinction by its actors and their contemporaries, such as Hooker and Darwin, was the most important cause. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Just as biologists have their favored places for doing research, so do historians. As someone who likes working in archives, the most surprising thing the present author ever found was a particular letter that had been written to him by the ethologist Niko Tinbergen-but that Tinbergen had never sent. The letter included a detailed critique of the intellectual style and conceptual shortcomings of Tinbergen's career-long friend and colleague Konrad Lorenz. The present author first saw the letter 3 years after Tinbergen's death and 10 years after the letter was composed. Here we discuss the contents and historical context of that letter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

William Sharp Macleay developed the quinarian system of classification in his Horæ Entomologicæ, published in two parts in 1819 and 1821. For two decades, the quinarian system was widely discussed in Britain and influenced such naturalists as Charles Darwin, Richard Owen, and Thomas Huxley. This paper offers the first detailed account of Macleay's development of the quinarian system. Macleay developed his system under the shaping influence of two pressures: (1) the insistence by followers of Linnaeus on developing artificial systems at the expense of the natural system and (2) the apparent tension between the continuity of organic nature and the failure of linear classification schemes (which continuity seemed to require). Against what he perceived as dogmatic indolence on the part of the Linnaeans, Macleay developed a philosophy of science in which hypotheses that exceeded the available evidence should be proposed and subjected to severe tests. He also developed a novel comparative anatomical methodology, the method of variation, to aid in his search for the natural system. Using this method, he developed an intricate system that showed how organic nature could be continuous without being linear. A failure to appreciate these facets of Macleay's thought has led to several misunderstandings of him and his work, most notably that he was an idealist. These misunderstandings are here rebutted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventional wisdom has had it that the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace and his colleague Henry Walter Bates journeyed to the Amazon in 1848 with two intentions in mind: to collect natural history specimens, and to consider evidential materials that might reveal the causal basis of organic evolution. This understanding has been questioned recently by the historian John van Wyhe, who points out that with regard to the second matter, at least, there appears to be no evidence of a 'smoking gun' variety proving it so. In the present essay the circumstances of Wallace's interest in the matter are reviewed, and van Wyhe is taken to task with alternate explanations for the facts he introduces in his argument. The conclusion is that Wallace almost certainly did have the second objective in mind when he left for both the Amazon, and the Far East. Keywords: Alfred Russel Wallace, Henry Walter Bates, evolution, natural selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic entomology flourished as a branch of Natural History from the 1750s to the end of the nineteenth century. During this interval, the 'era of Heroic Entomology,' the majority of workers in the field were dedicated amateurs. This article traces the demographic and occupational shifts in entomology through this 150-year interval and into the early twentieth century. The survey is based on entomologists who studied beetles (Coleoptera), and who named sufficient numbers of species to have their own names abbreviated by subsequent taxonomists. In the eighteenth century, 27 entomologists achieved this level of prominence, of whom 37% were academics, 19% were doctors, 11% had private incomes, 19% were clergymen, and 8% were government officials. Many of those with private incomes were members of the European aristocracy, and all but one were European men. The nineteenth century list included 192 entomologists, of whom 17% were academics, 16% were museum curators, 2% were school teachers, 15% were doctors, 6% were military men, 7% were merchants, 2% were government entomologists, 6% had private incomes, 5% were clergymen, 5% were government officials, and 4% were lawyers. The demographics of entomology shifted dramatically in the nineteenth century. Whereas many of the noteworthy entomologists of the eighteenth century were German, Swedish, or French, in the nineteenth century, many more European countries are represented, and almost one-fifth of the noteworthy entomologists were from the United States. The nineteenth century list, like the eighteenth century list, contains no women. By the twentieth century, 63% of 178 noteworthy systematic entomologists were paid professionals, teaching entomology courses in universities, or studying insect taxonomy in museums and government-sponsored laboratories. Only one person on the twentieth century list had a private income, but women (ten individuals) were included on the list for the first time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1749, Linnaeus presided over the dissertation “ Oeconomia Naturae,” which argued that each creature plays an important and particular role in nature’s economy. This phrase should be familiar to readers of Darwin, for he claims in the Origin that “all organic beings are striving, it may be said, to seize on each place in the economy of nature.” Many scholars have discussed the influence of political economy on Darwin’s ideas. In this paper, I take a different tack, showing that Darwin’s idea of an economy of nature stemmed from the views of earlier naturalists like Linnaeus and Lyell. I argue, in the first section of the paper, that Linnaeus’ idea of oeconomia naturae is derived from the idea of the animal economy, and that his idea of politia naturae is an extension of the idea of a politia civitatis. In the second part, I explore the use of the concept of stations in the work of De Candolle and Lyell – the precursor to Darwin’s concept of places. I show in the third part of the paper that the idea of places in an economy of nature is employed by Darwin at many key points in his thinking: his discussion of the Galapagos birds, his reading of Malthus, etc. Finally, in the last section, I demonstrate that the idea of a place in nature’s economy is essential to Darwin’s account of divergence. To tell his famous story of divergence and adaptation, Darwin needed the economy of nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nineteenth-century British entomologist William Kirby is best known for his generic division of bees based on tongues and his vigorous defence of natural theology. Focusing on these aspects of Kirby’s work has lead many current scholars to characterise Kirby as an “essentialist.” As a result of this characterisation, many important aspects of his work, Monographia Apum Angliæ (1802) have been over-looked or misunderstood. Kirby’s religious devotion, for example, have lead some scholars to assume Kirby used the term “type” for connecting an ontological assumption about essences with a creationist assumption about species fixity, which I argue conceals a variety of ways Kirby employed the term. Also, Kirby frequently cautioned against organising a classification system exclusively by what he called “analytic reasoning,” a style of reasoning 20th century scholars often associate with Aristotelian logic of division. I argue that Kirby’s critique of analytic reasoning brought the virtues of his own methodological agenda into sharp relief. Kirby used familiar metaphors in the natural history literature – Ariadne’s thread, the Eleusinian mysteries, and Bacon’s bee and spider metaphors – to emphasise the virtues of building tradition and cooperation in the goals and methodological practices of 19th century British naturalists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the relationship between the eminent 19th-century naturalists Charles Darwin and Carl Vogt. On two separate occasions, Vogt asked Darwin for permission to translate some of the latter's books into German, and in both cases Darwin refused. It has generally been assumed that Darwin turned down Vogt as a translator because of the latter's reputation as a radical libertine who was extremely outspoken in his defence of scientific materialism and atheism. However, this explanation does not fit the facts, since, on closer investigation, Darwin not only gave serious consideration to engaging Vogt as the German translator of two of his books, albeit ultimately rejecting him, but he also collaborated with Vogt on the French editions of his works. In this paper we argue that this was not because Darwin was unaware of Vogt's personality and blunt writing style; rather, Darwin seems to have decided that the benefits he would gain from their association would clearly outweigh the risk of offending some of his readers: in working with Vogt, who was not only a knowledgeable scientist but also an avowed adherent of Darwinism, Darwin could be assured of the scientific quality of the translation and of an edition that would not distort his central concepts - both of which were by no means matters of course in 19th-century translations of scientific works. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the development of the reputation of Louis Jean Marie Daubenton as naturalist. Daubenton's contribution to the book "Histoire naturelle" depicts his intention to establish facts before probing the mysteries of natural history. He had used his findings to show the anatomical foundations of locomotion and analyzes the limits of natural continuity. The recognition of the synthetic side of his research clarifies his relations with the next generation of naturalist-anatomists.

The article discusses the use of biogeographical mapping practice by naturalists Alfred Russel Wallace to draw a boundary line between the Malay and Papuan groups in the eastern colonial tropics. The line was drawn along the western shore of Gilolo through Bouru and between Sumbawa and Flores in Indonesia. In 1848, the Ethnological Society of London began to publish its journal wherein they came up with the idea to construct an Ethnological Map of the World.

Examines some significant attempts at broadening the historiographic horizon concerning the immediate context to Charles Darwin's intellectual enterprise. Argument that a multi-faceted European debate on the transformation of life forms had already occurred in Europe around the 1800; Solutions proposed by naturalists active in different national contexts.

Focuses on external versus internal explanations of the Darwinian revolution. Genesis of the evolutionary theory and its reception; Impact of society on science; Argument that because Darwin's contemporaries lived in such a competitive and individualistic society, they were prone to accept a theory that exhibited these same characteristics; Competition between Darwin and A. R. Wallace.

Argues that historians of science should abandon any notion of a Darwinian revolution and that other historiographies can be developed, especially by younger people in the years ahead. View that the historiographic themes of "evolution" and "revolution" need replacing because they perpetuate mid-Victorian scientists' history of science; Development of a historiography of origins and species, of cosmologies, and ontologies, as an alternative.

Points out that the Darwinian revolution is still in progress, and changes that are going on are reflected in the contemporary historical and philosophical literature, including that written by scientists. Development of a new ontology as a consequence of the realization that species are individuals; Provision of a clear distinction between the roles of history and of laws of nature.

Argues that the phrase "Darwinian revolution" is justified because Charles Darwin was an innovator in his field. Darwin as a philosopher and methodologist; Darwin's innovative use of "thought experiment" in the "Origin"; Origin of Darwin's innovative thought experiments in his notebooks; Darwin's suggestion that he was inspired by Charles Lyell.

Discusses the transformations that have taken place in the naturalist tradition as illustrated by the contents of "The Ibis," the journal of the British Ornithologists' Union. Study of living birds in their natural environment; Effects of professionalization on the discipline; Focus on biology increased by the Journal; Importance of methodological and institutional context in determining and reinforcing appropriate research programs for ornithologists.